Valin Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 Washington Post:George Will6/28/10Pursuant to Elena Kagan's expressed enthusiasm for confirmation hearings that feature intellectual snap, crackle and pop, here are some questions the Senate Judiciary Committee can elate her by asking: -- Regarding campaign finance "reforms": If allowing the political class to write laws regulating the quantity, content and timing of speech about the political class is the solution, what is the problem? -- If the problem is corruption, do we not already have abundant laws proscribing that?-- If the problem is the "appearance" of corruption, how do you square the First Amendment with Congress restricting speech to regulate how things "appear" to unspecified people?-- Incumbent legislators are constantly tinkering with the rules regulating campaigns that could cost them their jobs. Does this present an appearance of corruption?-- Some persons argue that our nation has a "living" Constitution; the court has spoken of "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." But Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking against "changeability" and stressing "the whole antievolutionary purpose of a constitution," says "its whole purpose is to prevent change -- to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away. A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that 'evolving standards of decency' always 'mark progress,' and that societies always 'mature,' as opposed to rot." Is he wrong? -- The Ninth Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 14th Amendment says no state may abridge "the privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens. How should the court determine what are the "retained" rights and the "privileges or immunities"? -- The 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people") is, as former Delaware governor Pete du Pont has said, "to the Constitution what the Chicago Cubs are to the World Series: of only occasional appearance and little consequence." Were the authors of the Bill of Rights silly to include this amendment?.....(Snip) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argyle58 Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Listening to blurbs from the Judiciary Committee today, I don't think her confirmation is a lock. Even some of the Dims were expressing doubt as to her qualifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clearvision Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 Listening to blurbs from the Judiciary Committee today, I don't think her confirmation is a lock. Even some of the Dims were expressing doubt as to her qualifications. I hope you heard that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinz Posted June 29, 2010 Share Posted June 29, 2010 When Hatch is slicing and dicing, there is trouble. She's not that sharp, from the little bit I've seen/heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now